Custom part 2

Contrary to popular opinion, the Romans did NOT exile the Jews from the Land of Israel. Yes, thousands were taken away into slavery; but the bulk of the population remained. However, there was great persecution. When Rome turned to Christianity, the persecution increased greatly, as it now had a theological basis as well as the old Roman desire for world domination. Most of the Jews eventually fled from before this persecution. There was an existing, thriving Jewish community in Babylon (Iraq) since the 6th century BCE. Unlike the Roman Empire, attitude  toward Jews was, for the most part, not only tolerant, but actually positive. The Babylonian Jews even  had a sort of king, called the Exilarch (Reish Galuta) who was given a great deal of official authority over the more or less autonomous Jewish population. To be sure, there were periods of persecution, but these were few and far between. Many of the Jews of the Holy Land fled to Babylon, expanding and enriching the indigenous Jewish population.
As I mentioned in my previous post, after the completion of the Mishnah in the early third century, the rabbis of Israel and Babylon studied this work, commenting and drawing conclusions for Jewish practice; both in the areas of law and custom. Many of the rabbis of the Holy Land did emigrate to Babylon, but many stayed. Those who stayed had to meet and study in secret, as the Byzantine Romans put down any expression of Judaism in the most brutal ways. As a result, the comments on the Mishnah, known as the Gemmara, were, in the Holy Land very brief. After about a century and a half, it ceased altogether. In Babylon, not only did the rabbis meet openly, but there were biannual meetings of the scholars from all over the country, to study together and "compare notes".While it was generally acknowledged that the Israeli rabbis were greater, the rabbis of Babylon were able to delve into their studies far more. The composition of the Babylonian Talmud took place over a period of at least three hundred years, with many historians believing it was more like six hundred years. Being a more complete work, it was eventually (about the year 900) accepted by the entire Jewish world as more authoritative. In the area of custom, while the Jerusalem Talmud puts far more emphasis on it that the Babylonian, the post Talmudic Israeli community and its rabbis even went so far as to establish that a custom could outweigh a law, based on an obscure passage in the Jerusalem Talmud..The Babylonian rabbis opposed this view strongly. There was even a period of about a century when the Jews of Israel and Babylon were observing holidays on different dates! All agreed about the law, but the Israeli community argued that their custom overrode the law. Eventually, the Babylonian view prevailed.
Now, when the Jews fled the Holy land, and many went to Babylon, many others fled to Europe. Large numbers fled to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), while many others fled to Italy. Charlemagne invited Italian Jews to move into his empire in France and Germany.The former community is known as Sepharadic, the latter Ashkenazic, from the Medieval names for Spain and Germany respectively. Although both populations originated in the Holy Land, for various geopolitical reasons, the Ashkenazic community had easier access to the Israeli scholars, maintaining the practices of the Jerusalem Talmud for many centuries, while the Sepharadic community had easier access to Babylon, and, at an early era, had gone over to Babylonian practices. When it became accepted that we follow the Babylonian Talmud, the Sepharadim had no problem; they had been doing that for centuries! For the Ashkenazic community, there was now a fundamental crisis. Their common law was the Jerusalem Talmud; their statutory law was now the Babylonian Talmud. I shall examine in my next article how this influenced the remarkable birth of a new approach to practice, study, and general perception of Judaism in the Ashkenazic community, and what happened when the inevitable "cross pollination" between the communities occurred.

Custom 1

In an earlier post, I differentiated between "Tradition" and "Custom" I went into some detail on "Tradition". Let's now discuss custom.
The fact is that that the classical sources deal very little with custom. The primary source is a fairly brief statement in the Mishnah (core work of the Talmud), which teaches the following: On festivals, nearly all work is forbidden, similar to Shabbat. For two of the festivals, Passover and Sukkot, we have a "full festival" at the beginning and end (one day in Israel and two days in the Diaspora), with several intermediate days. These intermediate days are called "chol hamo'ed" (the week days of the festival). On chol hamo'ed some labors are forbidden, while others are permitted (primarily those which, if not done, would result in a loss). Passover is a unique situation, in that the day before Passover, although not technically a holiday, had the offering of the Passover sacrifice in the afternoon, while the celebratory eating of the Paschal lamb took place only at night, with the commencement of the Passover holiday. By rabbinic enactment, work was restricted on the afternoon of the offering, similar to chol hamo'ed. We are informed, however, that some places had the custom of not doing work on the morning of Passover eve, while other places continue until mid day.. If one goes from a place that does work, to a place that doesn't, if a permanent move, one abandons his previous practice and adopts the custom of his new home. If a temporary stay, one needs to follow whichever practice is stricter. We see from this two things. First, that customs need to be observed. Second, that at least at that time, customs were neither personal nor familial, but geographic.Although we do find elsewhere "the custom of their ancestors is in their hands", this clearly means the ancestors of a particular community.
The Mishnah is discussed in the Gemmara (the two together make up the Talmud). We have two Gemmarot, one of the Sages of the Holy Land, which we call the Jerusalem Talmud, the other of the Sages of Babylon, which we call the Babylonian Talmud. Usually, the Babylonian goes into much more detail in its explanation of the Mishnah. But in this case, the Babylonian Talmud only discusses the apparent meaning and implications of this statement of the Mishnah, while the Jerusalem Talmud goes into an uncharacteristically lengthy discussion of a variety of customs; including which are valid, and which are not.However, it also mentions various of cases of rabbis coming into communities where customs which made no sense were observed, yet they were careful to respect and maintain the local custom. In the Babylonia Talmud, when rabbis came across a custom which they found improper, they spoke up against it. In the Jerusalem Talmud, customs, even if in error, were to be respected and maintained. How did these diverse views effect different Jewish communities in the post-Talmudic era? That will be my next post.

Tradition

One of the difficulties in translating from one language to another, is that a word in the original language, may have more than one meaning. Sometimes, the meanings of one word could be opposites. This is the case with the word "cleave" in English, which can mean "to stick to" (as in cleave to a person) or "divide", (as in to cleave a piece of meat). When translating into another language, we must be certain how the word was used in the original context, or else, our technically correct translation, we, in fact, be a total distortion.Sometimes it is actually difficult to know what the author meant, or the ambiguity may have been an intentional literary device, essentially impossible to translate..
This is the case with the word "Tradition". A tradition may be a custom, like having cranberry sauce with our Thanksgiving turkey. It's not a law; I have yet to hear of anyone arrested for not eating it. Yet, it is a long standing American tradition. If one only had a hamburger on Thanksgiving, he would probably feel that he had missed out, and would spend the next few days regretting the loss, albeit temporary, of this tradition, of which he has memories going back to his earliest childhood, with associations with friends and family, many now gone. He has lost out on a connecting link between past, present and future. Yet, it is not obligatory.
Now let's take a look at England. England has no constitution. It's laws are based on Common Law, much of that going back to the Magna Carta. Essentially, they are Traditions, which have the force of law. One such Tradition is the right to trial by jury. This has become enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, as well as of many other countries. If an accused criminal demanded a jury trial, it would be outrageous for the judge to tell him "I don't think so. It's only a custom, and I'm too busy this week to deal with it". True, in England it is only common law, but is, nevertheless, law. It cannot be compared with the cranberry sauce.
In Judaism, the cranberry sauce example would be called "minhag" (custom; a traditional practice). The English trial by jury would be called a "mesorah", which means "to be handed down". Some Mesorot are considered Biblical, although not spelled out in the Bible. For instance, nowhere in the Bible do we have the age of thirteen as the time when a boy becomes enough of a man to be considered responsible for his actions, and fully bound by the laws of G-d. However, we have "received" a mesorah that this is the meaning of "a man" in the Bible. This has been handed down by G-d to Moses, and from Moses to the people. It would be ludicrous to think that there is no Torah definition of reaching one's majority, as the courts would have needed to know when to enforce a certain law in the case of a particular person. In fact, we consider this Biblical, not rabbinic. Other things have been enacted by rabbinical courts, as specified in Deuteronomy 17:8-13. They may legislate to strengthen, or "put a fence around" a Torah law. Although they do this by authority of the Torah, nevertheless, it is considered rabbinic law.An example of this would be the eating of Hametz (leavened food) on the day before Passover. The Torah commands to bring the Passover sacrifice on the afternoon of the day before Passover, before Sundown.We are told in the Torah to not bring the Passover "with leaven". We have a Mesorah, going back to Moses, that this means that leaven must be out of our possession by noon of the day before Passover.We regard this as Biblical. The ancient rabbis forbade eating leaven for two hours before this time, and required  having it out of our possession, by one hour before noon, as a "fence" so as not to make an error on a cloudy day. We are careful to note that this is NOT part of the Torah, except as the Torah gives the courts the right and obligation to protect the laws. This is rabbinic law.This, too, is part of the Mesorah, while keeping the two separate and distinct.Otherwise, we would be violating the Torah's prohibition of "you shall not add or detract" from its laws.There will be differences in how it is applied. For instance, in a case of a doubtful situation, in a Biblical law we need to be strict, in a rabbinical law we may be lenient. Now, there may be local, or family, traditions surrounding Passover. These are considered Minhag, and depending on the community, they may be regarded as very sacred, albeit not laws. This is especially true in Ashkenazic tradition. In other communities, this is much less the case. I was told by a leading Yemenite rabbi "the minhag is to keep a minhag, but there is no legal necessity". In the former cases, the Tradition is, in fact, law. In the latter, it is below the level of law, but nevertheless is observed, and honored,  as Minhag.
Therefore, when we speak of "Jewish Tradition" we must be very clear of what we mean. Do we mean Mesorah, and, if so, what kind of Mesorah, or do we mean a custom? All are holy, but not all are obligatory in the same way.

The Disguise

A Hassidic rebbe had many followers. However, one was a successful businessman, and needed to look acceptable,and be acceptable, to the outside world. When he came to prayer, or to Hassidic gatherings, he would dress in the Hassidic fashion. But when he was involved in business, he dressed in accordance with the latest European styles. One day he thought it over, "why am I trying to fool the other Hassidim, and especially my Rebbe? I put on a "disguise" as though I'm something I'm not!" The next time, he came to his rebbe dressed like a Paris gentleman. The rebbe asked him about this. He said "I don't want to fool you by coming in disguise. This is who I am". The rebbe replied "Oh, until now, I thought that the Jewish you is the real you, while you wear a non-Jewish disguise for the outside world. Now you're telling me that it is just the opposite?"
We all live in many worlds. But which is the real "me"? When I was in my twenties, I knew a gentleman who was an executive at IBM. Once, I visited him in his office. His advanced computer (which required no punched computer cards!) was programmed to allow a game of "rolling dice". (This was long before Pac Man!) We played at this for about an hour. Then he said "Let's check how much core time we used during this hour". He pushed some buttons. We had used less than a second of core time! We must do many things in this world...but where is the core time? Is our innermost soul dedicated to amassing wealth, and our prayers and Torah study are there in order to "convince G-d" to make us successful? Or is my core time directed towards G-d, towards the spiritual aspects of existence? Even if that is a fraction of the day, if that's the core of my being, than that is the real me. At that point, I disguise myself for the world, and remove the disguise before G-d, and before my self.

Is Jacob Ethical? Part 5

It is impossible for one culture to understand another, unless one has studied and  is familiar with that culture. I once heard a program on the BBC that illustrated this. Americans and British speak the same language, but often don't have a clue in interpreting what they have heard or seen. For instance, in the U.S., there is a culture of "male bonding". Friends will often hug, or place their arm on a buddy's shoulder. In England, this is rarely done. When Englishmen see this behavior in a movie, they assume that the characters are gay, and are puzzled to find out that they are not. Similarly, expectations differ as to the outcome of a movie. An American film and a British film might have the heroes surrounded and outnumbered. Death seems imminent.  But for the American audiences, the heroes MUST be rescued at the last moment by the Cavalry or the Marines. To a British audience, the heroes are expected to fight honorably to the end, going out in rousing songs of cheer.
We have a similar situation in the story of Jacob and Laban.Jacob is in love with Rachel, and asks for her hand. Her father, Laban, insists on seven years of labor for the privilege. This by itself seems strange, but becomes to us unbelievable when he substitutes the wrong girl! What can be more sacred than the bond between husband and wife? But Laban has different values. "Such is not done in our place; to give the younger before the older". The ethics of the situation are trampled upon by his desire to observe local customs. "No problem, marry Rachel too!", but this comes with another seven years' price tag of essentially slave labor. After fourteen years, Jacob arranges with Laban to earn some wealth of his own my getting a portion of the sheep that are born. Jacob, enjoying Divine blessing, becomes wealthy. Then he sees that Laban and his sons now hate him. He is told by G-d to run away, to return to the Land of his birth. Laban runs after him, ready to kill, but is warned by G-d not to harm Jacob. The discussion between the two men is telling. "Why did you run? I would have made a huge party if you told me you were going!" Jacob replies "you've cheated me over and over, constantly changing unilaterally the terms of my employment. I knew you would take everything, including my wives!" Laban's response "the girls are mine. The sheep are mine.Everything you see is mine."  REALLY? Jacob had worked hard for what he had. he had abided by Laban's rules, but had ultimately come out on top.Laban felt that everything that had ever belonged to him was still his, even if sold. One must keep up appearances for the neighbors, no matter what. Laban saw all this as ethics...his country's ethics. He has righteous indignation at Jacobs justice. Jacob, the moral man in the immoral situation, has defended himself (after being initially cheated) and is able to return home in wealth and dignity.
I once had a personal experience with this sort of cultural-based misunderstanding. When I lived in Israel, I made my primary living out of teaching classes for scribes; those who write the Torah scrolls and other holy objects. I made a deal with a businessman who also worked in this field. He would promote and administer my classes. He made a deal with a radio station to advertise my classes, for a large percentage of the revenue generated. Between the businessman and the radio station, I only got 10% of the income from the classes. I figured that that was an OK deal, temporarily, until the classes were well known and successful.After a few years, when things were going nicely, I asked that we renegotiate the terms. The manger of the radio station said "I made an investment. It paid off. Now you want me to voluntarily cede what is mine?" I saw this as Laban's "the girls are mine, the sheep are mine". The American values I was raised with , that hard work would be recognized and rewarded accordingly, were ruffled and offended, . I felt that I was now being cheated! As far as the manager was concerned, i was cheating him! So what if I was to remain in  poverty? The deal was to remain. I stopped giving classes under those circumstances. I felt better that I retain my dignity and  self respect rather than  submit to what I saw as unethical. The manager and the businessman both thought I was out of my mind.In retrospect, I realize that we were dealing with two different culture, two different mindsets.
Jacob's issue, however, was not about making a living. it was establishing the People of the Torah. There were many obstacles. Many cultures would expect him to be a silent victim. He would then be a universally beloved, if tragic, figure. But this is not the values of Torah.Was must do everything possible, within the bounds of law and morality, to see that G-d's purpose is fulfilled. For us, Jacob is a hero.